y!

4. k .,. . .. . ... hM?lo~AL -.

4QVISORY

COMMITTEE .

AEfim@= FOR AERONAUTICS

wimmm mwowr
ORIGINALLY ISSUED October 1943 as Advance Restricted Report 3J23 l!XFECTOF IJ!llGTH-BEAM RATIO ON RESISTANCE AND SPRAY OF THREE MODEIS OF FLYING-BOAT HmLS By Joe W. Bell, Charlie C. Gerrison, and Howard Zeck

Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory Langley Field, Va.

NACA
.. , -

>

WASHINGTON
NACA WARTIME REPORTS are reprints of papersoriginal.ly issued tuprovide rapid distribution of advance research results to an authorized group requiring them for the war effort. They were previously held uder a security status but are now unclassified. Some of these reports were not technically edited. Al 1 have been reproduced without change in order to expedite general distribution.

.
.!,

..

--

NATIONAL

ADVISOHY

COMMITTEE .

FOR AERONAUTICS REPORT

. . . . .

.-,-.

ADVAI?CB! RESTRICTED . -RATIO

EEFEOT OF LENGTH4EAM 1 : 1 SPRAY By 017 TRREE hODELS

C31RESISTA190E AED HULLS Zook

OF FLYIN(J-BQAT

Joo W. Boll,

Chnrlie

C. Garrison, sUIMARY

and Howard

An i;~vostigation of tho offoct of changes in tho length-beam ratio of flying-boat hulls on resistance and A fanny of cpray was ccriducted in I?ACA tank no. 1. three models of hulls of different length-beam ratios was hull sizes, the used and, in order to maintain comparable plan-form areas of the hulls were made approxi,fiately equal by keeping equal products of len~th and beam. tests were mnde by the gen~ral uothod for the fixed-trim condition ha WS1l as by ths specific method for the free-to-trim condition. Iholographs of the spray Beei6tance and were taken during the free-to-trim tests. trimniag-no:.lent data ~btalned from the tests were compared over a wide rande of leads at best-trim and free-tctrim conditions. Further co~parisons were medo by means of take -off calculations for hypothetical flying %oats that incorporated the liaes of the models. The spray photographs indicnted that at very low speeds the height of the bow spray was reduced by lncreaeing the length-beam ratio, but at high speeds the height of the spray was increased slightly by increasing the length-beam ratio. It was concluded from the rasult~ of the tests that by Increasing the length-beam ratio the load coefficiant may be increased and that, within the rango of the teste, high length-b~am ratios will give lower hump resistance and better take-off performance than low length-beam ratios.
m. .JJO

The trend in tho design of modern flying boats to decrease the frontal area by decreasing tho beam incraaseta the.beam loading and requires an incraase in length-beam

.-

______

2 ratio tic. in tho and 3. corned causes ohscuro

.,.

L/b to maintain suitable hydrodynamic characterisThe available information on tho effect of changes length-beau ratio is containod In roforences 1, 2, The analysis of this information is mainly conw~th incr~ase in length for a given beam, which in sizo of the hull to tho effect of incroaso tho offnct of length-beam ratio.

was und~rtak~n to dotoruino Tha prssent Invostlgation the offoct of chanClng th,? length-beam ratio and of keeping the siz.? of ihc hull constaat at thn eamo timo - th~t of tho hull is, the effect of chaafllng tho proportions The for a given flying boat without changi.lg the volumo. propo~tions for such a sorlos could. not bo dctorainod oxactlcy withmt dotall designs for each hull but havo been appro.iiuatorl by me.intnlnln:: a constant value of the product of lonth and beam for tho modols w:th different longthhcar rmtios.

T]~roc modols of fl:=iag-bc%t hulls with a Variation in le.l@h-3~am ratio of 55porcn.lt worr us~t! In the invos!!!l~e r,nngc of lsn~.:tk-%o%m rutios tostnd covored tigatioa. Yho mGdels Woro tho range u~ed on mod?rn flying boats. tcstsd ov~r a wido riLj~gQof loadings in ordor to include tho offact of ch~ngcs In lo~d cooffici?nt.

of the thrco !nodols tostod aro shown in Photo&raphs figur> R 1 znt! i?. Th~sc mod,,is arn dosii:natot! lLIOA modols 144, 145, and 146. Typic.s.l sections aro shown in figure of tho modols 3, anti th.~ offsets used In tho c~nstructlon are &i*.-onir. t~bles I, 11, and 111.

The yaront form of tho scrios, NJ-OA modol 144, vas idoatical rith ??ACA nodol 04-AF (rcferom-cci 4) oxcopt for A.ft,:r thcj modols hnd an incroaso in tho dogth of st~p. boon constructed, thifi depth waG i.acroasodirom 0.4 inch tli~ mod.cl.s, or fro~ 2.5 percent to to 1.0 inch for r.11 This in6.28 pcrcont of the beam of tho parent form. cre%so In the dpth of stop wcs nada bocauso ter.te of dynamic modols of flying bents have indioat,~d thnt ski~plng of tho and high-aagla porpoising mlflhtresult from the use orlg~ilfil t.opth of stop, When tlie formfi of MAflA models 145 an?. 146 wore dorivod, the product of length and bo%n of e%ch modol was

-. \

mado equal to that of modol 144, and tha corre~pondlng tr~. asverao Boctloae of tho bottom surfacas warn mado gQo-,-, tidd tlio-samo for the metrlcai=ly elmilar .- Oth6%valti6-@ of dond riso , angle of f orebod? throo mod.ole were : keel, angle of aftsrbod~ keel, height of hull, and depth of step.

anglo

The following equatio~s give the rolationshlp of the dimensions of the dorivsd medals to those of the parent model: Ldhd = Lpbp

.. A.

nn

!/z-

(except for corroctiocs agizliod to maintain eq-ual angles of k~ol, equal depth of stop, and equml over-all height)

Ld Lp bd bP hd P
K

any- longitudin~l longitudinal to Ld any transverse

di,zension of dertved of pmrent mo~el

m~del corresponding

Libension

di~~nsflon

of d~rived

fiodel

transverse to bd any vertical vertical constant

diuension

of pr,rent mo2eJ. corresponding

dimension

of ?.ertvcd inod.el aodel corresponding to hd 145)

dlmonsion

of parent

(1.25 for model

145 and

1.5G for model

Iil ordgr to maintain the SG,UQ angles of the keel, a ccn?roctlon wns appllod that corresponded to the vertical

chango resulting from moving the section longitudinally In order parallel to the straight portion of the keel. to make the depth of etep equal to that of the parent model , tho entire aftorbo~y wa~ moved vertically by a Thn bow of the derived model was brought constant amount. to the samo height as the bow of tho par~nt model by arbitrarily raieing the eections forward of Btntlon 2. The dock was located at tho SRUO hsight ae the dock of Tho ourvod portions of tho dock line the parent model. at tho bow and tho stern wore made identical with tho cur~od portions of thn deck lino of the parent modol~ and tho length of the straight portion was oxtendad by the full amount of the incraase in length of the modol. Ths following tablo of t>.o modelEI: summ.rizas tho principal HA CA model 144 Ov~r-all length, inches . . . . . 114.85 Loaflth to st~rn-post, inches. ~ . 83.33 Length of fornbody, inches. . . . 5L.1O Length of aft.Jrkody, inches . , . S5 .23 Maximum beam, inches. . . , , . . 15.92 5.23 Length-bee.m ratio . . 1627 Length-beau product, s~u~r~ ~n~h~e Angle of dead rise, ?egroes 20 Ant;le 02 afterbody 5.5 k~el, ?.eg~e~s: 1.3 Angle of fore>ody keel, degrees . Depth of step, inches . . , . 1.0 Depth of step, 6.28 Ceatcr of gravit~-, forward of 7*Z step, inches , . Cnnt.or 0: gravit~,-h;i~h; ~b~v; keel I.iae at step, inches. . . . 17.54
l?ACA

dimenNA (hi model i46 140.67 102.06 61.36 40.70 13.00 7.84 1327 20 5.5 1.3 1.0 7,70 7.2 17.94

sions

model 145 128.41 93.17 55.02 37.15 14.24 6.54 1327 20 5.5 1.3 1.0 7.C2 7.2 17,94

pcrce~t b~a~: ,,.

were wero

Tho nodols wor~ constructed of lamimted mahogany and built in two sections that ~cined at the step. They finiehed with pigmented varnish.

APPARATUS

AND

lIETHODS

The Models wore teeted in l!lACAtank no. 1 by the uso of tho standard equipment and methods described In roferTLe water in tho tank was at th~ 12-foot level enco 50

Both the specific free-to-trim method - during the tests. Tho as-eumod method-wore-usad. and tho general fixed-=trtnr canter of gravity, located 7.20 inches forward of tho st~p and 17~94 Inohee abovo the kool, was taken as tho pivot for tho freo-to-trim tests and as tho center of tr.imfitrig momonts for tho general tests. In tho froo-to-trim teste, tho hydrofoil lift devi.co wss used to sizuzlato tho lift of a hypothetical Tho lift was a~gliod at tho contor of gravity, an~ wing. Tho tho samo wing was asauiiiad for o~ch of the modola, load schadulo for tko gonare.1 tests was chosen to includo all loadO and spcz&a of ictoroet for prclininary design, aad a sufflclant aumbor of triaa woro us~d to datoralno Thrco tho dcte. at boat trim end at zero trinulng msnont. typlcF.1 loads in tha rango of the gon{.ral sched-~l~= wore assu,flod for tho frcs-to-trl.u teats.

Where d &i. load on water, lozd pounds pounds

initial

on watnr,

..

s ~pqciflc weight of vatem, ptmnds per oubic (GS.5 lb/cu ft for HA(IA tank no. 1) beam of hull, foot fcot per sacond per aocond

foot

b tz
v

aoceler~t ion of ra~ity, (32.2 ft/sQ~a !

%n the Fenoral to~ts aro prnsented and trimming nomcnt plotted again6t B?ezd at VariOUB trims and loads in figures 4 to 10 to 16 for mod~l 145, and 9 for aodel 1.44, in fi~wes In figuyos 17 to 23 for Bodsl 146.

The data obtained ae curves of rosistanco

IliSCUSSIOIT

Couparlson of tko rosietanco curves from tho fixed-trim t~sts of t!io thros modols (fifle. 4 to 23) shows that incro~.siug the l:~ngth-beam ratio resulted in n decronsc in the rcsistanco !~t hump spoods and &t low spcods and mn Incroaso in th~ sp,?cd at which tho hump ooTilesc trontls held truo for s11 trlzs that wore currod~ investigate.. ... A comparison of the effect of dlfz,:ront length-beam ratios on resistance at hesj tria for tho throo models is given in figuro 31. Iu gcnaral, tile sauo conclusions .drawn@froin oomparisonB of resistance at equal trims hold . . ..#

At low spoods, an inoroaeo for resistance at boat trim. l-n the value of len~th-beam rat1.oreduoed the resistance The hump occurred at suooesslvel~ higher at best trim. of lengthspeeds, going from low values to high values The maximum resistance at the hump was rebeam ratio. duced about 7 percent by changing the length-beam ratio from 5.23 to 6.54, but was not changed appreciably when the length-beam ratio wa8 increased from 6.54 to 7.84. 10ads (S eeds above 30 At high speeds and intermediate fpe and loads of 40 to 80 lb, model size 7 , the resistance reduced as the length-beam ratl.o was Increased. At was effeot resulthigh speeds and light loads, no signlftcant ed from changing the length-beam ratlo..

Curves of trim-and resistance at sero trlmmlng moment for each of the models at an Initial load of 100 The pounds are combined for comparison In figure 32. effects in the free-to-trim condltlon were substantially the same as those found at equal fixed trims and at best Increasing the length-beam ratio oausod a reductrim, tion in resistance at low speeds and at the hump and caused the hump to ocour at a higher speed. of load-resistance ratio Curves of tha ~rarit~tion A/R with load for models 144, 145, and 146 aro shown in figure 33(a). Tha <ata in thase ourves wore taken diractly from the curves of resistnnco (best trim and free to trim) of tha aOdOIS. Comparison of theso curves shows the effects of ohanglng length-beam ratio without oausing a signflficant chmngo In tho volune of the hull or the area show that In both the Thoso curves of the pian form. besttrim and tho freeto-trim conditions A/R wae made larger by Increasing the length-beam rntio from 5.23 to 6.54 but was not changed appreciably by a further increaso to & length-beam ratio of 7.84. at Tho ourves of A/B best trim show that, at c speed of 40 feet per socoad, increas!.ng the length-beam ratio Inoreased A/R at the affect at loads behoaviar loads but h~ti no significant low 25 pounds. The curves in figuro 33(b) were derived by convertthe data from models 144 and 146 to values for two hypothetical models having tho lines of models 144 and 146 and lengths equal to tho length of model 145. C omparIson of these ourvos shows that, within the rango included In the tests, Increasing tho beam without changing tho length would Incror.eo A/R This offoct iS at tho hump. prosont in both the free-to-trim and tho bast-trim condiing

8 . .

tlons and at u1l 10CMIS inoludod in the Investigation. a speed of 40 feet Comparison of the ov.rves reprcsonttng AIR por second shows that in the high-speed condition would ho dooroasod by Inorensing tho beam. A/R Oarves of varlntion of load-ros18t~nce ratio Inwith lo%d ooofficiont G& ~ro shown in figure 34. asmuch as tho coofficisnts used incorporate the bonm as tho ohnractorlstio dimension, comparisons rondo In terms of thoso coefficients show the saaa relativo valuoa as would be shown in compa:lsons of data for modols of equal beam and dlfforent lengths. this comparison In genornl, Iudicatos thnt, within the range of length-beam ratios inPoatigated, increasing tho length of a hull would lmpr ovo A/E at the Lump but would CQUSO lower values of A,/R at spoods near got-away. At boat trim, tho dnta indloate that incroa~ing tho length-boom ratio from 5.23 to 6.54 (by longthonlng the hull) would causo a rc!latlvoly largo incroaso in A/E nt the hump and tkit a further iEof 7.84 would Incronso A/Ii by a lcssGr croaso 50 a TFLIUO remount. In the free-to-trim condition, e.n increnso from A /11 a length-benm ratio of 5.23 to 6.54 WO-LIE inoroaee at the hump, but a further Incronoo to a VO.lUO of 7.84 would .mako no significnut chango in A/R at the hump. It is b~lio~~h thct th~sc t~~nds would kold true for hulls ~porating at t)ia cozditlons of tha test but, hccause of tho dogcndonco upon tho location of tho center of gravity, tho treads ine-loatcd by tho free-to-trim data might not a?ply in other cfiscs. A cornpnrison of tho cu.rvos of figure 34(n) shows that Increasing the loagth of a Lull similar to modol i44 (without changing the beam) would result In n reduction of AIR ut spQeds nonr g~t-awfiy. This trend appears to remain constant th~oughout the ranga of length-beam ratio from 5.23 to 7.84 and, inasmuch as increasing the length of the forobod;r c~nnot bn cxpsctod to ohan~e the wetted area when the hull is planlnfi ats.high speed, tho inoroaso in roiistanco MF,y be &ttributed to tho iacrensed length of the afterbo&y. The effects of chnnging length and %enm on rosistmnce may be sucnmrizod as follow~: Increasing beam alone or length aloao increases A/R at tho hump speed and decroas~s A/I? at high pl=ning speeds; increasing lengthboaQ ratio without chnnging tho plan-form area increases AIR at the hump and cncses little chnngo In z@ at high planing spaods.

,..

\ )

Photographs of the spray formations of the ymz..-. thrae rnodelsare shown in--f igties 35 and 36. - Thes6 pMotographs were taken during the specific tests in the froeThe models were eompnred at equal to-trim condltlon. initial loads and equal speeds; howover, tlie load ooeffioients for the modole difforod by as much as 85 percent. At low speeds, the short modols (with small length-bcmrn ratios) pi*oducO~ higher ?IOW spray than tho long modele; was. a near the hump speeds and planing spoede, the Hpray (Seo little higher for the modols with narrow beams. flge. Z5 and 36.) When tile length r.nd tho ber,~ wero tho only ~ariables In hull dinensians, %s la f~guros 35 and 360 there appeared to be an indication that the spray was sore dependent ~pon tho mroa af tko pla~ing surfncoa than upon tho Yor this reason, tho lend coefficient beam itself. should not bo tnko= as a doftnite criterion for tho loading of a hull unless the length-boat ratio also Is considered. In order to compare the ovorTr.ko-off porformarco.all raslatarce ~-~~-~als, ta~-.o-off calculations woro HyF~thstic~,l flyrmde for a serioe of local co.?fficlentz. ing bo:.ts were asoumnd, with modols 144, 145, and 14G used Tha hullfI .:: tlio~o flyi~g boe.ts woro nsas the hulls. sumed tc b~ 10.5, 11, c~d 12 tii~cs th? SiZO Of the ~odol !iho characteristics , which mro the sano ior .311 hulls. Gross load, pcunds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wing nroa, square feet . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total horsepower at take- off (four engines) . . . Zlngino spood, revolutions For ~lnute . . . . . . Gear reduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Prop~llor: DinnatQr, feet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19umhsr of blades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Flaps : Type.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Span, percent wing span . . . . . . . . . . . . Chord, percent wir.g chord . . . . . . . . . . . Asgectratlo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Effective aa~ect ratio, Including ground effect. Paraslto-drag coefflciont (excluding hull) . . . Wing loading, pounds per sq-.~arefeat . . . . . . Power loe.ding, pounds per horecpower . . ~ . . . Staillmg speed, feet per second. . . . . . . . . Get-away speed, feet por second. . . . . . . . . . 140,C50 3,500 . 9,200 . 2,600 . . 16;5 . . . . . . . . . . . .

19.3 3
split 60.0 20.0 10 20 0.02 40 16.2 132 145

..

. .. . . .. _____

10
Tho lift and drag euzveta of the wing, which were oorrocted for ground of foct for uso In the ce.louktlons, of tho flap~ were taknn fr~u referonc~ 60 The deflection wae taken as 30. In order to make sovoral take-off plots, n serlos of load coefficients was used for each ucdol for a (Soo figs. 37 tc 39. ) Tho load coef ~i-ren gross wei~ht. flc~o~ts used ~~ver~d t~o entire range of t~ ~ests, Tho fron-to-trifi condition war used up to and elightly beyond Above this tho hump tc 45 peroe~t of get-away speed. speed, procisiou tri~ (trim fer ~ini~um total roslst~nco) was used. The nothod usou for the cnlcul=tions of takeoff ti~o and distanco is doscrihed in rofarcnco 5, throo Qho taond cf tha cur~es of total roelstanca (rasistR + D) fallowad tha trend of tho rosi6tnnca plus drag, At high planing anco carves fr~~ tho fixoii-triu tests. sp~eds, t~o s~~rc~yon the afterbodiaa caus~d the rosistanca to iacreaso with lGagcr afterbodies. Yho offoct of the lefigth-bcnh ratio on restst:]nce wtas a~t criticnl at the s~eods mar get-ii.waye

11

upon the length-heaa produot

3. Better 4. Higher take-off

thari upon

the beam

alone. )

per fornanoe load ooefflolents

pornia~iblo

Langley Monorial Aoronautionl Laboratory, National Advisory Coamittoo for Aeronautics,

Langley Tiald, Ta.

Jar.es 1:., and Parkinson, 1. Shoenaker, Tests of z Rnriily ~f Fly Zag-Boat 491, M4CA, 1934. 2. Sottorf, W.: EACA, 193a. Tho Design Of Floats.

John B. : Tank T. N. HO. Hulls. T.M. fiO. 860,

3.

Dnvl. ds on, Kenneth S. ~f., and L~cko, F. W. S., Jr. : Sano Systematic l{odel Exporiue~ts on the Porpoising lt&CA A.R.R. Charnoteristlce of Flying-Boat Hulls. NO, 3112, Juno 1943.

4. Parkinson, John B. , Olson, Roland E., Draley, Eugene C.. Acrodynauic and Hydrodynamic and Luona, Arvn A.: Tests of a la~lly of Models of Ylying40at Hulls Derived fron a Stroau15ne Body - NACA Model 84 Series. FiAOA A.E.R. Ho. 3115, Sept. 1943. 5. Trusoott, Starr: of Its Work. The Enlarged N.A. C.A. Tank, T.M. ~Oo 918, NAOA, 1939. and Sono

6. Olson, R. E. , and Alllscn, of Various Hydrodynn~lc the Take-Off of a Large IJAOA, 1940.

J. 11. : Tho Calculated Effoot and Aerodynaalc Ye.otms on Eop. Ho. 702, Flying Boat.

NACA

12

,.

. .. .

. .:. ,.

TABLE I . - OFFSETS OF MODEL 144, INCHES

Statiox Distant
from F.P. D R 1.24 3.04 4.16 5.67 6.63 ?.22 7.61 7.81 ?.93 7.96 7.94 7.87 7.75 1.33 3.25 4.45 6.04 7.07 7.70 8.10 8.32 8.47 8.58 8.68 8.78 8.88 7.08 7.58 7.45 7.37 7.02 7.11 6.58 6.80 6.15 6.45 5.72 6.05 5.28 5.61 4.85 5.43 4.68 5.12 4.59 4.01 3.39 2.73 2.03 1.23 .87 .51
.

gr

I
0.73 1.78 2.44 3.32 3.88 4.22 4.45 4.57 4.64 4.66

0.60
;

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13F 13A 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2? 28 29 30 A.P.

2.85 5.10 9.60 14.10 18.60 23.10 27.60 32.10 36.60 41.10 45.60 50.10 54.60 59.10 63.60 68.10 72.60 7?.10 81.60 83.33 86.10 90.60 95.10 99.60 104.10 108.60 112.80 114.00 114.60 114.85

0.02 .09 .21 .98 1.19 1.45 1.76 2.11 2.51 2.95 3.1s 3.44 3.97 4.55 5.17 5.83 6.53 T .24 7.47 7.58 7.64

0.97 0.99 0.92 0.88 2.36 2.43 2.26 3.14 2.92 3.23 3.53 3.08 4.38 4.54 4.18 3.98 5.13 5.30 4.90 4.65 5.59 5.78 5.34 5.07 5.89 6.09 5.62 5.33 6.05 6.25 5.77 5.47 6.14 6.34 5.86 5.56 6.25 6:37 5.97 5.66 6.35 5.76 6.07 6.45 5.89 6.17 6.55 6.04 6.27 5.55 6.37 5.87 5.04 4.69 0.19 7.52 5.20 6.14 4.92 4*4C .29 7.14 4.91 5.76 4.63 4.19 .42 6.53 4.70 5.15 4.42 4.08 .58 5.65 4.59 4.27 4*31 4.08 .75 4.49 4.59 3.11 4.31 4.20 .92 2.96 4.71 1.58 4.43 4.57 4.4e 1.42 1.02 4.85 4.68 4.6S 1.812

13

NACA

TABLE II. - OFFSETS OF MODEL 145, INCHES

s ta
tlo

Dist an ce from F.P. 0.67 Z.19 5.70 10.73 15.77 20.80 25.83 30.86 35.89 36.60 40.92 45.95 50.99 56.02 3.25 .25 .24 .23 .21 .18 .16 q 13 .11 .09 .07 .06 .11 .22

D2

E?

F.P : 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 9A 10 11
12

13F 13A 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ;: 25 26 27 27A 28 29 30 A.P

7.60 7.?2 7.83 7.94 6.94 61.05 L.04 2.72 (3.78 6.46 66.08 L.32 2.91 6.59 5.98 71.11 L.65 3.14 6.36 5.49 76.14 ?.02 3.42 6.08 5.01 81.17 2.43 3.73 5.77 4.53 86.21 ?.89 4.09 5.41 4.04 91.24 5.38 4.48 5.02 3*55 93.17 5.58 4.64 4.86 3.37 4.92 4.58 96.27 5.92 .01.30 1.49 5.39 4.11 .06.33 5.10 5.91 3.59 .11.36 5.75 6.47 3.03 16.39 5.44 7.06 2.44 21,43 7.18 7.68 1.82 22.16 7.29 7.?8 1.72 26.12 7.99 3.31 1.10 27.46 1.29 3.52 .78 28.13 3.48 3.62 .46 28.41 3.58 3.58

0.94 1.18 1.46 1.65 1.84 1.89 1.89 1.89 1.85 1.80 1.80 1.78 1.80 1.86 1.97

1.11

2.72 3.72 5.07 5.93 6.50 6.81 6.99 7.09 7.10 7.12 7.10 7.04 6.93

0.96 .O.9C .85 .3s 2.68 1.68 3.76 2.3E 5.21 3.35 6.14 3.9E 6.73 4.37 7.11 4.63 7.33 4.7F 7.49 4.8E 4.99 5.11 5.24 5.40 4.49 3.99 3.64 3.35 3.16 3.06 3.07 3.22 3.37

.0.96 .49 1.89 2.66 3.71 4.41 4.84 5.13 5.29 5.40 5.52 5.63 5.74 5.86 4.86 4.45 4.09 3.81 3.62 3.52 3.53 3.55

048$

2.17 2.9[ 4.0{ 4.74 5.17 5.4: 5.5$ 5.67 5.7C

0.9 .4< 1.8( 2.5: 3.5; 4.2( 4.6: 4.8 5.04 5.1! 5.2 5.3[ 5*4! 5.6: 4.6: 4.3( 3.8, 3.5: 3.3 3.2 3.2[ 3.3( 3.3;

).65 !.59 !.18 !.97 ).47 5.77 ;.38 1.09 i.15

.
17

).1;

.2: .3~ .4[ .6: .7( . .2; ,.6~

5.73 5.39 5.84 5.05 1.02 2.65 r:?b . rad

1 5.7C 5.4s 5.15 4.61 3.82 2.7~ 1.42

.17

NACA

TABLE III. - OFFSETS OF MODEL 146, INCHES Sta. tfol Dlst. ante D1 from F.P. ~.47 0.73 .46 q 44 3.49 6.25 .42 11.76 .38 17.27 .33 .29 22.78 28.29 .25 33.80 .21 36.60 .16 39.32 44.83 .12 50.34 .10 55.85 .11 61.36 .26 66.87 72.39 77.90 83.41 .98.92 94.43 39.94 .02.06 .05.46 .10.97 .16.48 .21..99 .27.50 .33.01 .34.42 .38.16 .39.63 .40.36 .40.67 ,.09 .43 ..82 :.26 .71 1.22 1.74 1.97 :.33 :.93 i.58 ;.22 ;.92 .72 .98 ).57 !,87 I.1O 1.27

F.P ; 3 4 5 6 7 8 8A 9 10 11 12 13F 13A 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 27A :: 30

A.P

1.63 2.02 2.58 2.86 3.18 3.32 3.34 3.28 3.22 3.18 3. 17 3.12 3.13 3.19 3.29

1.01 2.48 3.40 4.67 5.42 5.90 6.21 6.38 6.43 6.47 6.50 6.48 6.43 6.33

1.63 ;24 2.21 3.22 4.56 5.44 5.99 6.36 6.58 6.75 6.88 7.01 7.13 7.25 6.25 5.72 5.20 4.66 4.13 3.61 3.(37 2.54 2.33

-1.63 -.15 1.31 1.97 2.91 3.48 3.85 4.10 4.25 4.38 4..50 4.62 4.71 4.93 3.94 3.47 3.03 2.71 2.44 2.28 2.21 2.24 2.33

-1.63 -.07 1.49 2.22 3.20 3.85 4,27 4.56 4.73

1.81 1.98 ?.72 5.71 1.33 1.72 $.97 5.10

-1.63 -.lG 1*4C 2.lC 3.04 3.67 4.07 4.34 4.5C

3.60 1.45 1.99 z .71 3.17 3.45 3.63 3.73

4.026.19 4.19 6.02 4.40 5.81 4.65 5.57 4.94 5.27 5.28 4.94 5.63 4.58 5.79 4.43 6.03 4.18 6.48 3.74 6.94 3.28 7.43 2.77 7.98 2.23 8.58 1.64 8.72 1.48 9.13 1.00 9.30 .71 9.35 .42 9.27

1.08 .17 .27 .40 .54 .66 L.09 L.47

;*1, 1.8: ).3: 6: :. ~.6 !.4: ,.8; .1[

.rm

4.85 5.18 4.98 5.20 5..10 5.23 5.35 4.35 5.20 3.89 5.01 3.48 1.70 3.13 %.2G 2.86 3.49 2.69 ?.54 2.6C 1.36 2.54

4.62 3.79 10 4.75 4.87 S.oc 5.12 4.12 3.6C 3.2: 2.9C 2.62 2.47 2 .3E 2,31 30 2.3:

Figurel.- Profile viewsof NACA models 144, 145, and146.

..

Model 144

Model 145

Model 146 Figure 2.- Plamfonn views of NAC,A

models

144,145,and 146*

& . N

!ltatia18 22 to so.

Stat ions 10 to 1*

5tationa

14

to U

~ta~ion, ~ to ~3F
Figure 3.Typical SectIons of

StatlixmlSA .to al Moda18 145wd 146

defifit;ona of symbols

stations ,22

to 30

g
a

rnodala 144,

145, and

146, Md

used in tsbles 1, II, and III.

p-

IACA 32

(1 block=

10divisiou8

on 1/40s Rag.

c~o)

ric. .4 .

28 , Aq1001b /

a4 \, 2 - 30 9 \ j .
Ulllll

00 . . + ~ 60 * w L /,
IIIJII

40

m-l

1~

AA

I
n Y >

12

d
8

/
w

7 < y /
A= == -

9?) .
w

i! /

4 ~

+ +

10 *

0 /

160 A . 120 \ = 100 lb

80

\ x

//.

-80

-120

-160

o Figure

10

15

20

a5 moment.

30 Model

35 144;

40

45

50 trim = 2

55

sped, fps
4. - R.miotance and trimming L/b = 5.a3;

tiAcA 3a

(l,block = 10j40U)

rig. 5

as ,,
2 ;20 j
m :16 +

a4 #
{ 4 , f / / f
J %.x

A,=100lb
\ \
\ ~ ~

!x // ; 1 +

( , i 1, / . ;? ~ % lx .

\
x~ ~

80 .x.

x. x

.x

_x-

60
/ ~

12

G/

4C

ao

[/

4 A o. /

160 A =1 110 1) , t 120 ~ 1 0 80 .-a. \

\ x\ , \ , Q
x

80 60 * :4
+

\ \ \

0 40

. + G Q 2 e m
$

\ -

\
-x

\ ~ a* . + k .* R

0
( /x

5 , .

ao

lo

a -40~ 4
E -80

<

A /// + /+ . +~

-lao

-1600 Figure

10

15

ao

5. - Resistance

and trimming

a5 Speed, noment.

30 fps Model

35

40

45

50

55

144; L/b = 5.a3; trim = 4.

,..-.... ..

_ .-...._-

N$:A

(1 block=

10/40)

rig. 6

/ 28 + k

A=

lao lb

a4

b---m I
\

,
I

I
I

I
I

,
I

1
I

, I

1 I

I I I

1 I

I I

1 I

I I

I+, I

)
+

.
w 100 e 80

Y{

60

IY

E -4 10 .-4 &

!m
/

/L
x

cf/ [/

/
f

--

+ -80 ~ - /

-120

F=FT
5 10 15 ao Figure 6. - Resistance and trimming 25 speed, uoment. 30 fpe Model 35 40 45 50 55 144; L/b - 5.23; trim = 6.

-1600

(1 block = 10/40)

Fig. 7

~ - 12 0 lb 28 i J 24 +[
0 /
.+ cd :

/ -*\ , -+-

100 ko r 4
x

80 60
x

20

j 4 : lx
m

16 +1

o A ./ % /

40

-x -x-x.% XX* - ~_ .
u

xl
I 1

1201

12 a 8 *

/ /

JM

/l

MA

ulP#

II

I
+

Illli

1201

I I 1

4
A

-+

I /+I 10
5

0-

&-

160

A 120

. lao lb

I I ++++ f \+

00

t / + % 4 A
80 %

\ + \+
\ .

E I 40 D
d

II
L .. o c + \ < \ 20 -+ 5 -10

-mu

1
\ / p / / x 41 +
-x / / 5 I / + 10 15 20 25 Speed, moment. 30 fpa Model 35 40 45 50 55 L

-120X -

-160~ Figure

7.- Reeietance

and trimming

144; LID = 5.23; trim = 8.

I mmII I I lmlln~w

., ,,,, ,,,,,, ,,., ,,,

,.--.,--.

... . .... ...-

NACA /la

(1 block= +/ -

10/40)

Figs . 8,9,10

A=
a8 I + a4 I + } w + ~ ao Qj : 16 a 2 12 / 42 x ? 60 80 \ +-+ +.+_ +_

120 lb
.+_ +_ I +

+f

>.7.+> .

A=

1$30lb

100 9 J

100 ~

P- +

/ + ~

- +-
0 /

A m 10 lb + +/ ~

160

120

80 A =1 iW 1 > 49 /

w ; A z :

0 0 a W .5 2 -80

-120 15 ao 25 Speed, fps Speed, fps Figure 8.- Resistance and trimFig.9.- Resistance and ming moment. trimming moment. Model 144; L/b = 5.23; trim = 10? Model 144- Lib = 5.a3; trim s 126.

Figure Model

Speed, fpa 10. - Reaiietance and trimming moment . 145; Lib = 6.54; trim = 1.

(z

Figure

11. - Resistmce

-d

trimming

Speed, moment.

fps Model 145; Lib = 6.45; trim = 2

,.,-.,,,,,, ---

.---, -,,,.-,--- ,, ,,. ...-. -.. ---- .. ... ..

. ... .

--i

20

1
10 -5

.x I \l I w

/#
u -40 ~

I z 20

Ax
>

4 >+

-80

-120

-1600 Figure

10

15

20

12.- Re#imt~ce

qnd trimming

25 Speed, uoment.

30 fps Model

35

40

45

50

55

145; L/b = 6.54; trim = 4.

MACA

(1 block : 10/40)

Fig. 1.3

Ill

Illl#ll\l

Ww
. E [L
-80 Y
-lao& .+/ d

\ 100
1
.0

I x

x +
4I .x A t

/{

-1600 Figure

10

15

20

13. - Resistance

and trimming

25 Speed, ~oment.

30 fpe Model

35

40

45

50

55

145; Lib = 6.54;

trim = 6.

_. .

NACA 32

(1 block = 10/40)

Fig. 14 1

26 EB Ill /4 ~+. ~, 4 , /

A - 12(I lb

II

FFFFEFF
12 8 4

.20

=-4(3 .d :

LEEl L-l---P I
(
v

-s o

L -120

F
2 Figure 5

/y
T

7/: (~
10
15 20 and trimming 25 40 45 30 35 50 Speed,fpR moment. Model 145; Lh = 6.54; trim E 8 55

14.- Resistance

. .

.. . ...-_ ______

HACA 32

(l block=

10/40)

Figel.15,16,17

A 28

-12( I lb -,-

,+ ~+ - -+H A -la 1 lb +

~ +: -+++ 24

100

+. > &=w- / ,+ / f .>X.= ~= x( lx . 60 80

100

a - 20 Qv c : ~ 16 : lx 12

\ X, 80

A - lC :b I +L _+ - /+- ~ + 5 ~ + ,

..* -

160

120

80

: 24

+. ,.A= / +\

120 lb

w c e g o a M 5 6 z -40 2

1C lb

-.8 _~
40 I
x

\+,
60 , lQ0

A = 120 lb +.+-.+ \ + .
/f ~ co

--

._

I
b 5

80 -a o
7/

-12 0

. 15 35 45 50 55 8pead, fpm Figure 17.- Resiatanco amd.trimming moment. Model 146; Lfb = 7.84; trim = 1. 40

20 25 25 20 30 15 Speed, fpm Speed, fps Fig.16.-Resiet~ce md Figure 15.- Resistance and trimming moment. trimming moment. Model 145; L/b = 6.54; trim = 10. Model 145~ L/b = 6.54; trim - 12 .

MACA

(1 block = 10/40)

Tig. 18

.,,,.,.,,, -., ,,,,

,.,,,-, ...,.. -. ,-,-. . . .... . .. .-

NACA 321

(1 block = 10/40n) I I I I I a: 120 lb i .

Fig. 13 I I I

I
/

..

H++ttL+tb+H I I I I I I loll/
I
[

, 1 I h, I

;1
i :16

I
I I

I
I I

I
I I

Iflti
I d-l 1/
AP d

Y )7
LX. 4 A

lofl

I
.

/1 . v- I Ill-lxx
I */ +11/,

I
I

ail

/7x

x-

6C
60 n

.A 401

J7!4%wrtt

+~
-Eo

/+--

-120 -

-160 ~ Fig~re

10

15

20

19.- Resistance

and trimming

25 Speed, moment.

30 fpe Model

35 146;

40 L/b = 7.84;

45

50 tria = 4.

55

NACA

(1 block = 10/40)

Fig. 20

32-

28 .

,.6 = 120 lb 24 I n . 4 J.@+ +/ \

Yq

100
80 /

$ D d &c
al

1111111
.4 !0

I
I

I
I 3

11111
I I I I

I
I

lP/1 1\ I 11.f-f I \ Wrl ?L #/ 1<160 h,

I/&l I
-zX.+

100
\

l-x

2
.

1?

.5#

:-40 .2 E-6-0 1 D /

-120<, + .1600

-w/

10

Fi~Jre 20 - Resistance

15 20 25 Speed, and trinizing moment.

30 fps Model

35

40

45

50 triz = 6.

55

146;

.Lib = 7.84;

lJACA

(1 block = 10/40)

Fig. 21

32

28 /-A. lao lb , +/+, / +>. , , ~1 / + , ~+ // / / + ./ / + 12

0 / q

24

s 20 . :16

d L

100

60 /
r /

~ , k. x =x ~ - -

x
u

30 . .
/

/
x-

40 x

m 2

8 x 4 / /./

/ /

20 ~ + 10 ~ ~

+ -

160

120 A= +-+ 80 + 120 lb

: ~ +

40

.P c m 20 e y .,-1 e j .40
:

5 1
0

q ,
/ /; // r + I + ,1 1 , I t
0

10

20

-80

r~ x / / b= x /

/ x /

-120

/ /+ /

/ /

-160 x o Figure

x-~ x 5 0 15 20 25 moment. 30 Sneed. .,. 45 35 40 fno Lib = 7.84; Moilel 146; 50 55

Z1.- Re.sistaace and trimming

t,rim = 8,

NACA 32-

(1 block = 10/40n)

TIUS. aa.a3 Q= iao lb

ae ~++ %+ / 24 +
+

++_A - 120 lb

FHTFTwl
/ P % -nl!oo
$

/ +
0 100

20 2

/ 1+ . .
X=J -xx x

_r- .

po

)i
I /

16 1 Y la x. 8 / 4 x . + > 40 x /j x x /

-Un-

/ I 60 h- _

0 --

.60 1

.20 -. 1

80 -

:= 40 +f -\ -% *.X * . . +.

lao lb

0 -

++. 100 *>O A=

lao

lb

,++,

1
I I
I

I
-80

11-1kl+.1

I I 1 I tdl1
I I I II I I I I I I I I 1 I t

P+d
I I 1

-120 I -1600 Figure 20 25 30 Speed, fps 22.- Resietmce and trimming moment. Model 146; L/b = 7.84; trim = 10. 5 d 35 60 Y40

~iiiiiil
ao

Model

25 30 Speed, fpta Figure 23.- Resistance and trimming moment. 146; Lib = 7.84; tria = 12.

xAOA
8 / A = 120 lb 7 \ \ \ \, 6 . \

Fig. 24
I

& a5 * i 54 ; 2 3

/ \

/\
A = 120 lb

I / 2 20 / ,
1 I \

1/

(
16 ~ / 12 / 8 t 1 -20- 7 / / / / ~ ~ / / /

. J j : m 2

4 I

I I ~

10
5

=-

o -80 /

\
A = 120 lb

70 ~
~ 60 I

/> 1..

, \

\ \ \

.50 ;~ g E 30
20

\ t 100 80\ I
I r \ \ \ 40 \ \ 25 I 80 Speed, Figure fps \ 5

\
\ \ 60

i & 10 o. -lo -20 o s

/lo

10

15

20

Vnrlntlon of bae.t trim, resistance at best trmn, and trlndng 24.Model 144; L/b = 5.23. moment at best trim vlth speed.

IiACA

Fig.

i I WA

as I
1

=1201b]

-.

Ill

I
\

4s
a4 m
m

Ill

111111

20 \ \ 10 5 \ \ .

\ \

\ . . \ \ \ \ \ \

/ I

t-t-t-t
1 ,
1

\ \

t,

t,

I t

v A

/1

/, \

, *=,
hi

120 lb

u
1L-10

\ ,

+111111

II

I\

100
90 ,

// ,
[ I \

Ill

I
a

. @ ~ 60 g Ei50 :40 i &30 m m 10 M

h \ 80 \ \ ,

\ M \ \ 40 60

y
5 Ffgure 10 15

.
\ \
25 30

0. -lo -20;
20

i!

35

40 Speed, fpa

45

50

56

25. - Varlatlcm of best trim, reslatanoe moment at best trim with speed. Model

at beat trim, and trim!mlng 145; L/b = 6.54.

HACA

16

FF w

///

100

/ /

no / I
1

K I I I A I

120
110 100

c
; r+

90
80

20 10 0

-lo
-m o
5 Figure 10 15 20 26

so

35

40 Speed, fpa

46

50

5s

26.Varlatlon of best trim, resistance Model moment at beet trim with speed.

at best trim, and trl=l~ 146; L/b = 7.84.

BAOA a4

(1 block

= 10/40m)

Fig. 27

20

-OJ

K \~ \A. \ %, lao
1

lb

-+

.x

v-

--

.+

100

12

-4 . . .. .

<

< \ \ \

120

10 F

i!. ,>

. .
~
\ \

I
-.

~
\

I
100

\,
~\

.x.
K

8
lJ
4

t t

..
\

J/ i

L \

\ \ \+
\

\\

80

~. /22~ /

\\ v

\
x.

-u \

I -4.
I %

k, ? %.
.

--- ..- f !F o 1 \ ft, \\ \

I I + 1 x. I-W I I \ r-q 1 I I

1-

T120I 1 I Iioo I I
1

I 1 I I

80
0

. . \ . \
y

-c / ~
I

~.

--- -- c- > , . / / C .. ~. \ x
\ \

\
\ \ , 120

: ------

AO , lb 120 100 80 1

v~i

\
\ \ 100

42:0 37.5

I
10

\\
80 40

I.a Specific

Figure27.-

frOO-tO-trim

20 a4 28 32 36 Speed, fpo teats. Model 144; L/b = 5.23.

28

--I I w x \ .

--- -

1--T-LEO-.

I
100

80

k \

\ \ \ 120 \ . \

60

+ t

\.

40

/i

\
\ (

\
h

\ \
-T80111

20

1111

l-t

II I

l\\l\

\\\ \

111111111
a \\ ,

11111

.\ \ \ \

-t \
-92 2

\ \

1
I

iw-H+-H
---12 10

11.IKJOI .
\ \-- .80

1 I

4 Figure

28. - 9pecific

ao 24 28 Speed, fpe free-toytrim teete. Model 145;

32

36

40

L/b = 6.54.

i? i
IJACA 24 ?

(1 blook = 10/40)

rig. a9

20

~ lb . Iv $ * 12 m
m
u

/ / } ,0 / % / P

f. .-* \ % K ~ \ \ + A. = 120 lb

+
tt-Fl%

\.
I I
-M---

\
-b-A.b,lotll .-,---

1 ~i-

1
---

I
I

lao
I

1 4 -- --

. L 1 \

Y
\ L

80

1 ,00

802

---

0~
12

\ . -..
-. . =.. -. * . . . . /?fik I ,-: *, > \ , / \ , / \ + j \ x\ , \ x \ \ k \ \ +

L
L . \

\
N 1 \ . \ \ \\ \ \ 80 $ \u \ \ \ . .x. . \ \ \ <. -. \\ ~ lac 100 . \., 100
20

a ~

F1

60
\ 120

.s

10

8 .!#

I
-6
.5 E

I I

/+1

4 / 2 ~

X. *O

o I \ \ \ >\. 1

8 a011

1 I

I I

I I

lmL . I

I I
\ \\ \ \ < \

I
I

11111

- --~.< 1

>-~

--

~
.

. \ .
\ \

34
m

120

AO, lb :;;: X-----1

,1,11 I
1

\ \
\ \ \

100

%.2
80 42.0 3?. s
I

I
I 8

\ 80

ol-L-

I 4

la

Figure

29. - Specific

a4 28 3a 36 Sneeri. . . . . . . fnm . ~free-to-trim teste. Model 146; L/b = 7.84. 15

40

.
liMA

I I
Model 1~,

L/b =

1, I 7.84
1 I

!-

---

I
12
-

I
I

1 Y , \

Ab, lb

\ /

120
100

11111
IMOdOl

~ -

J,};

00

145, LA = 6.54
,,

,,,

1=

.,,

.4

---

100 ,Modol 1~, --

!1

, ,

L/b =

5.23

.2

0 Speed coefflotent,
Figure Cv for

30. - Varlatlon of load coefficient with speed coefficient free-to-trim tests Of models 144, 145, and 146. (1 block= 10i40W)

28

24 144 5.23

/h

40 8

.4

10

15

20

25 Speed, fpa

30

35

40

45

50

55

Figure

31.-

Effect

of length-beam

ratio on resistance

at best

trim.

HACA
r

Tic. -.-. 32

100

80
\

145 \

144 146

5.23 6.64 7*84

5
d-

60
.

AO = 100 lb \

Is
40

\
20 20 18 16 14 0

f\ r
L/b = 5.23- I] /06.54 d / ~ / /~ < f / // I / I/ , 1,/ / 91 /, r / / / / 8 / \ \\ >, \ \) \ \\ \\ . ,_ -. & e-

4 2 0

11
10
9 8
7

.. A . -. I \ / / \\ I I \ \ I I \ \ { } $ / \ I / Lib = 5.2Y \ /6.5~ \ \ / /7.8 \ / / \\ / / / / // / f) ~ d / /

\\ \ \\ \.

\ \ L

3 2 -. /

1 0 0
4 e

12

16

20
Speed, fps

24

28

32

36

40

Figure

32.-

Effect

of length-beam

ratio on trim and resistance

in free-to-trim

condition.

liACA

rig. 33

E
pm

I \
/

I I\Ar.
{Y

I I
144 145 146 Model L/b W1.Jh 5.23 6.54 7.84 83.33 93.17 102.06 ?!8 15.92 14.24 13.00

/
/ / v

7
1

.
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

100

Load on water, (a) Effect Of varying length-beem

lb constant length-beam product.

~u A u c $ s

ratio with

# Hump, best trim I I / /\l -=t--- L-- \ 5 I

u
4

.< +---
\

-..
/ -

<
-_ _

/ Y/ f
( ,i / /// /./ / , /

Hmnp,

free to trim I I 145

Model 144 146

L/b 5.23 6.54 7.84

Length ::.7::0 93.17 93.17 14.24. 11.87

20

-40

60

100 80 Load on water,

120 lb

140

160

- 180

(b) Figure 33.-

Effect

of change

in beam. ratio With load for different length-beam ratios.

Varlation

of load-resistance

rig. 34

//

/ /

Model

L/b

// I

.2

..4

..9
hotia

1.0
coefficient,

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8
.

CA
b.=gt trim.

0 ~

(a) Variation
1
7

at speeds above hump speed,

d u
s :

---

-.-j.1

i---~

---

- -----

----

s
, !
Best trim

+:. ::5. . ; >_,_ ,

4

. 1
. _

-7+

.4

i\

1 ~-

!\ + \l
--

.= .,
:=

~~~ 1! -

;1
1 I I

~1 ~< ; : II

f-xl==

,,
-.,

I !--.I ......-------,-----: !:;1

I !

It
(

__
I I Model 144 145 146 Lib 5.23 6.54 7.84 1: t t

. .....

1 . ../..+ T:.+-...

I+.-...l.. - ~ +
1

..

, +...

. .~-..-~..,_; ,. :
i..lJJ1-. _,4 .6

_i____~

1./ ;:, 1 ;-- -, , 1.6

~1 I

4 i -.L 0 1o

. ... .---j

......L
.2

I
1.4 1.8

-!: .._!__L_.

.i_
1.2 CA

1.0 .8 Load coefficient, at hump speedg,

(b) Figure 34.-

Variation

best trim and free to t.~$m ratio with load coefficient.

Varlation

of load-resistance

NACA

Fig. 35a.b.c

(a)Model 144. Speed 6.I+ feet er trim, 2.56; CAO, 0.6 7 .

second;

(c)Model 1%. Speed 6.o feet er second; :~: trim, 2.@; CAO, 1.28.
~igure3s.Spray photographs, free to trim. t~o = 100 pounds.

Is.

NACA

Fig. 35d.e.f

(d)Model 144. sPe~d .m3q:g7ymmci; trim, 5.76, C&,

(e)Model 14 . Speed 10.5 feet per ?rim, S.4; CAO, O.W.

second;

(f) ivlodel 1%.

trim,

LMAL

speed
u.@;

10.2 feet
CLO, l.~o

per

second;

34[08

Figure35.

Continued. A. = 100 pounds.

(g)

Model 144. trim, 9.46; Vg:wep peed

econd;

(i) Model 1U6. Speed 1 .0 feet per

~J~~m,

LMAL 34109
sec~~i(i;

5.55;

Ac,

l*A~o

Figure35.- Cent inued. A. = 100 pounds.

,, 7
!,, , /

NACA

Fig. 35j.k.l

..

(j)Model lW. Speed 1 .9 feet per second; trim,9.O~; zAo, 0.67.

(k)

Model 14 Speed X.5 feet per second; ?hm, W-@; CAO, O.gu.

LklAL

(1)Model 146.
trim,

Speed ~.~ feet er 10. ~O; C~O, l.g~.

second;

341[0

Figure35.- Cent inued. A. = 100 pounds.

.

NACA

Fig. 35m.n.o

(m)

Model 144. Speed 30.6 fee per second; trim, 3.&; CAO, 0. 2T.

(n) Model 1~ . Speed 3Q.7 f~e~per second; ?rim, 3.X; CAO, .> .

(c)Model

1%.

Speed 31.0 feet per second; trim, 3.@; CAO, 1.W.

3411i

Figure35.- Concluded. & = 100 pounds.

NACA

Fig. 36a.b.c

(a)Model 144. Speed 6.5 feet er second; trim, 2.36; CAO, 0.8!.

(b)Model 14 Speed 6.2 feet er second; ?~im, 2.4; CAO, l.1~.

LMAL

(c)Model l%.
trim, Peal z.+, CAOS e!:q$?r 60 econd;

34112

Figure

36. - Spray photographs, free to trim.A. = 120 pounds

!!
NACA

. ....Fig. 36d.e.f

(d)Model 144. Speed,10.3 feet per second; trim, 5.60; CAO, 0.S1.

(e)

Model 14 . Speed 10.6 feet per second; ?rim, 5.@; GAO, 1.13.

(f)Model 1U6.

LM Speed

AL

trim,

4.56;

10.2 feet per second; WIS

CLO, lo~.

Figure36.- ContinuedO A. . la

po~ndso

NACA

Fig.

36g.h.i . .

(E)Model 144. speed 15.0 feet per second; trim, 8.J CAO, 0.81.

Speed 1 .7 feet per second; (h)Model lQ ?;im, 6.76; ZAO, 1.13.

I I

(i)Model 146. Speed 1 .0 feet per second; trim, 5.5~; 2Ao, l.~. Figure36.- Continued. A. = 12~ poimds.

LMAL 341[4

Fig. 36m.n.o

..

(m)Model 144. Speed @.Qfeet per second; trim,b.l~; CAO, 0.81.

(r,) Model lQ Speed 3Q.6 feet per second; ?~lm, ~.@; CAO, 1.13.

LMAL

(o)Model 1U6. Speed trim, 5.0

I-8feet per second; 346 Ao, 1.49.

Fi@re 36.- Concluded. A. = 120 pounds.

I
Model 40,000

I
L/b cAO

=
P

...
/ ! Thrust \ \ \ \ \ \ . \

144

145 146

fnko-off Distance, ft Time, eec 59 L_ 5150 5.2S 0.805 54 4840 6.54 1.13 4750 52- . 7.84 1.49

36,000

32,000

28,000 5 . ; 24,000 * * 2 ~ 20,000 c1 2 * m : 16,000

r.! d $ : 12,000

r i, \ / / L f / L/b=62 ~<: / /
. . ..-. / / / { / / // I f ,1/ / / /

\ \ \ \.i %> \ k R+D -. \ . , .

\ \ . \

/ < (,

>

>

8,000

v~

4,000 . /
10

00

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

Speed, fps (1 block = 10/40N )

FQure 37. -

w z .

lines

Take-off clmracterlstlcs of three 140,000-pound flying boats with hull of models 144, 145, and 146, aesumlng hulls 10.5 times size of models.

Q ,+

Speed, fps ..g (1 block = 10/40fi) Figure 38. - Take-of f chnracteris tics of three 140,000-pound flying boata sith hull lines of models 144, 145, and 146, assmi~g hulls 11 times size of models. %!